Birthright Citizenship Challenge

[Rightguide]

47 doesn't have a case

Not in the minds of the clueless it seems.

 

[ll74]

In the minds of the clueless it seems.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Politruk]

If Trump wins this, are the Puerto Ricans still citizens?

I'm sure Trump never thought of that -- he doesn't seem to understand that PR is U.S. territory.

 

[ll74]

It's a simple thing - if you want birthright citizenship to not exist, then create an amendment that corrects it or one that repeals the 14th

 

[Politruk]

It's a simple thing - if you want birthright citizenship to not exist, then create an amendment that corrects it or one that repeals the 14th

Believe it or not, there are Lost Causers who deny the three Civil War/Reconstruction amendments are part of the Constitution at all -- since they were ratified before the Southern states were re-admitted to the Union.

 

[ll74]

Believe it or not, there are Lost Causers who deny the three Civil War/Reconstruction amendments are part of the Constitution at all -- since they were ratified before the Southern states were re-admitted to the Union.

I'm aware. My thread was directed at them and they have contributed to this thread.

You're a fucking idiot

 

[PersonalFavors]

Good, we don't want you here.

You know as well as the rest of us England finally figured out Colonialism doesn't work.
Specially if all you have to contribute is hockey and maple syrup.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You know as well as the rest of us England finally figured out Colonialism doesn't work.
Specially if all you have to contribute is hockey and maple syrup.

What does the ending of English Colonialism some 100 plus years ago have to do with Canadians not want uneducated fuck ups like yourself in our country? You trying to show you're smart or something?

 

[Politruk]

You know as well as the rest of us England finally figured out Colonialism doesn't work.

No, only that it isn't profitable. After WWII, the Brits faced up to the fact that the colonies weren't paying for themselves -- except for India, and they had no chance of hanging on to India.

 

[PersonalFavors]

It is vague how independent Canada is now. The Brits claimed they were independent as early as 1867. But Britain was still negotiating treaties for them in 1908. Your friend Furry would have you believe Canada fought the war of 1812.
"Colonies paying for themselves". Bullshit. British colonies were occupied. The occupation cost more than the resources they could pillage. No less than Denmark occupied Greenland while all the other powers capable at the time were busy.
India? Go back and look at our history for WWII as well. If England did not exploit the Iranian's for oil they would not have had a single ship in the fight. After WWII they continued to steal oil from Iran. And the Dulles brothers helped see to it duping Eisenhower with their plan. Iranian's hate us as much as they do you.

 

[PersonalFavors]

What does the ending of English Colonialism some 100 plus years ago have to do with Canadians not want uneducated fuck ups like yourself in our country? You trying to show you're smart or something?

It was you that told me to go read your version of history. War of 1812 was the US busy running the Brits out again. We chased them back over your border.
It was more than 50 years before the brits abandon you but still held on. You did not gain independence. They granted it to you by not taking as much from you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It was you that told me to go read your version of history. War of 1812 was the US busy running the Brits out again. We chased them back over your border.

Lol you're memories pretty shitty. Kind of like your knowledge of History. Who burned the White House again?

The war was at best a draw. The US never gained the territory they sought to take. In other words, they lost.

It was more than 50 years before the brits abandon you but still held on. You did not gain independence. They granted it to you by not taking as much from you.

Actually, Britain learned from your war of Independence. The price of Colonialism was to great. They knew they would end up fighting on many more fronts. So they did what they should have done with the US almost a 100 years earlier.

We asked, they granted. Our full independence came in 1931.

But hey, keep trying to look smart. I get a kick out of it.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Lol you're memories pretty shitty. Kind of like your knowledge of History. Who burned the White House again?

The war was at best a draw. The US never gained the territory they sought to take. In other words, they lost.

Actually, Britain learned from your war of Independence. The price of Colonialism was to great. They knew they would end up fighting on many more fronts. So they did what they should have done with the US almost a 100 years earlier.

We asked, they granted. Our full independence came in 1931.

But hey, keep trying to look smart. I get a kick out of it.

So back in 1812 it was the US that ran the brits back up to canada when they came here to try again. What some 37 years after the revolution. I said that already. Canada didn't happen till 1931. God for bid some queen thinks they have rights to this country? You aren't Putin. hahaha Castro has no balls. hahaha er I mean *chuckles* bitch

 

[PersonalFavors]

Lol you're memories pretty shitty. Kind of like your knowledge of History. Who burned the White House again?

The war was at best a draw. The US never gained the territory they sought to take. In other words, they lost.

Actually, Britain learned from your war of Independence. The price of Colonialism was to great. They knew they would end up fighting on many more fronts. So they did what they should have done with the US almost a 100 years earlier.

We asked, they granted. Our full independence came in 1931.

But hey, keep trying to look smart. I get a kick out of it.

Hey fussy,
The queen died and no one knows who the king is.
Get over yourself

 

[PersonalFavors]

It's a simple thing - if you want birthright citizenship to not exist, then create an amendment that corrects it or one that repeals the 14th

Another amendment? There already is one. And no need to "correct" it, whatever that means. The interpretation must be clarified. Persons have been granted citizenship in error. You will see. You can interpret the SCOTUS ruling in your own time. We will abide.

 

[ll74]

Another amendment? There already is one. And no need to "correct" it, whatever that means. The interpretation must be clarified. Persons have been granted citizenship in error. You will see. You can interpret the SCOTUS ruling in your own time. We will abide.

It already is clarified. Some 47 lawyer told you otherwise and you believed them because you don't like current immigration laws.

There is no case that has ever been successfully argued in court that agrees with you. This one isn't changing that trend.

 

[Politruk]

Appeals court leaves block on Trump’s birthright citizenship order in place, setting up Supreme Court showdown

 

[ll74]

Interestingly, the administration is not arguing anything regarding birthright citizenship and instead are arguing against the number and level of injunctions and blocking taking place in the courts. Which is rather funny considering the number of extraordinary actions it is taking

‘The whole pie’: Trump team attempts novel legal strategy to subvert birthright citizenship​

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Hey fussy,
The queen died and no one knows who the king is.
Get over yourself

Damn I missed your replies....lets recap your stupidity....

It is vague how independent Canada is now. The Brits claimed they were independent as early as 1867. But Britain was still negotiating treaties for them in 1908. Your friend Furry would have you believe Canada fought the war of 1812.
"Colonies paying for themselves". Bullshit. British colonies were occupied. The occupation cost more than the resources they could pillage. No less than Denmark occupied Greenland while all the other powers capable at the time were busy.
India? Go back and look at our history for WWII as well. If England did not exploit the Iranian's for oil they would not have had a single ship in the fight. After WWII they continued to steal oil from Iran. And the Dulles brothers helped see to it duping Eisenhower with their plan. Iranian's hate us as much as they do you.

So above you claim we were an independent Country in 1867 (which is true)

So back in 1812 it was the US that ran the brits back up to canada when they came here to try again. What some 37 years after the revolution. I said that already. Canada didn't happen till 1931. God for bid some queen thinks they have rights to this country? You aren't Putin. hahaha Castro has no balls. hahaha er I mean *chuckles* bitch

Then you waffle to "Canada didn't happen till 1931". Let not forget you orginally said the US was the only country with Birth Right citizenship.

Being the only country with a law that allows non-citizens to birth here for citizenship I again see this as a very winnable argument. It should be eliminated.

Where I once again informed you were wrong....

 

[HisArpy]

What I've read says that the exceptions are rather specific, such as the children of foreign diplomats born on USA territory ("diplomatic immunity") the children of foreign military occupiers (if the Japanese had occupied Hawaii in WWII any children of their soldiers born in Hawaii would not automatically become citizens of the USA) the citizens of various "Indian" territories and so on and so forth. Anybody else standing in the territory of the USA is subject to the jurisdiction, otherwise, for example, a Swedish citizen could rob a bank in Los Angeles and say, "You can't arrest me, I'm not a citizen of the USA, I'm not subject to your jurisdiction!"

Actually, this isn't an apt analogy.

If someone commits a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and court where they're brought to trial. This is called personal jurisdiction.

However, merely being present in a country doesn't convey citizenship along with that jurisdiction. Being present in the US automatically conveys SOME Constitutional Rights (right to bail, right to an attorney, right not to be forced to testify against yourself, right against unlawful search and seizure, etc) but not ALL Constitutional Rights (citizenship for example).

So your analogy doesn't actually apply to this situation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Actually, this isn't an apt analogy.

If someone commits a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and court where they're brought to trial. This is called personal jurisdiction.

However, merely being present in a country doesn't convey citizenship along with that jurisdiction. Being present in the US automatically conveys SOME Constitutional Rights (right to bail, right to an attorney, right not to be forced to testify against yourself, right against unlawful search and seizure, etc) but not ALL Constitutional Rights (citizenship for example).

So your analogy doesn't actually apply to this situation.

Actually it IS an apt analogy.

There is no constitutional "right' to Citizenship, except birthright citizenship which is conferred at birth. Everyone, however, is subject to laws of the United States (with the exception of the rare diplomatic status).

Nobody except you is conflating legal jurisdiction with citizenship status.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Actually, this isn't an apt analogy.

If someone commits a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and court where they're brought to trial. This is called personal jurisdiction.

However, merely being present in a country doesn't convey citizenship along with that jurisdiction. Being present in the US automatically conveys SOME Constitutional Rights (right to bail, right to an attorney, right not to be forced to testify against yourself, right against unlawful search and seizure, etc) but not ALL Constitutional Rights (citizenship for example).

So your analogy doesn't actually apply to this situation.

I think you mean “if someone is charged with a crime.”

 

[schism666]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2906467242846088?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

 

[Rightguide]

It's a simple thing - if you want birthright citizenship to not exist, then create an amendment that corrects it or one that repeals the 14th

No. All you have to do is read the Constitution with understanding. You can't seem to do that because you can't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No. All you have to do is read the Constitution with understanding. You can't seem to do that because you can't.

You can’t read something without understanding.

What you really want him to do is read the Constitution with your biases.